A question to the local Catholics: How can an infallible statement be perceivably immoral?

Taking up an argument from Fr. Cleenewerck's book (excerpt found here), I'll start with some definitions.

Papal Infallibility:As defined by the papal bull Pastor Aeternus when the First Vatican Council was disbanded in 1870.

Quote

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

In this definition we have a set of criteria to determine what should be considered an infallible statement. It is also nonsensical to think that infallible statements only happened after the declaration of the dogma. Therefore, using this definition, these are our criteria:

-when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians

-he defines with his supreme apostolic authority

-a doctrine concerning faith or morals

-to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Relating this formula to the Papal Encyclical Exsurge Domine from 1520, we can determine it's infallibility.

Exsurge Domine

Quote

CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER

Exsurge Domine

Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520

Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it.

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

Rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. He is like the heretics "whose last defense," as Jerome says, "is to start spewing out a serpent's venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished." For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves. Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, "It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man's, or what is worse, the devil's."

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world's glory, and contrary to the Apostle's teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed.

These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church's advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church's independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance. Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation no less learned than true and holy of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord's field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history.

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc." Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.

22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

26. The word of Christ to Peter: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth," etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

31. In every good work the just man sins.

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.

36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.

37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.

39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.

40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.

41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord's field as harmful thornbushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it. For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): "I will be with you to the consummation of the world"; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.

As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.

But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father's love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.

Breaking this down into the required criteria (have also bolded for you):

-when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians

Quote

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor...

Quote

We forbid each and every one of the faithful...

-he defines with his supreme apostolic authority

Quote

When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors.

Quote

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above.

Quote

(again) In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor...

-a doctrine concerning faith or morals

Quote

...we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith

Quote

We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.

-to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Quote

By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Quote

We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them.

First declaration to be determined or refuted: This document fits the definition of 'Ex Cathedra'.

On these characteristics, we see a moral problem with the determined faith:

#33 That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

Second declaration: Either the infallible statement is a mistake, the formula for infallibility is incorrect, or there is no papal infallibility... or it is actually moral to burn heretics.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

Does this mean that if you make Confession to the Pope you are forgiven more than if you go to a priest? Does the priest forgive you less than perfectly or does the Pope give you surplus forgiveness for later?

Two possibilities. 1. He did in fact invoke his Papal teaching authority, BUT, did he invoke Papal Infallibility? Not certain that he did.

2. Heresey can be an even graver crime than murder because it can cause the eternal death of the soul. So, would it be wrong to put to death an arch-heretic like Martin Luther or Arius, if we are living in a Christian country? I am not certain that such would be wrong. It might be necessary to protect the faithful from spiritual death. I am not saying that I am certain on this point, just thinking outloud.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

Does this mean that if you make Confession to the Pope you are forgiven more than if you go to a priest? Does the priest forgive you less than perfectly or does the Pope give you surplus forgiveness for later?

I understand this as, a bishop is understood as the center of the local church, and the priest in service to him. The priest obtains his authority from the bishop, as well as any authority for indulgences. (at this time, indulgences granted were fully at the discretion of the local bishop) So, a bishop (the Pope being a bishop) is more than a priest. And the laity have no authority to absolve sins.

2. Heresey can be an even graver crime than murder because it can cause the eternal death of the soul. So, would it be wrong to put to death an arch-heretic like Martin Luther or Arius, if we are living in a Christian country? I am not certain that such would be wrong. It might be necessary to protect the faithful from spiritual death. I am not saying that I am certain on this point, just thinking outloud.

And we wonder why Richard Dawkins has so many followers, holy mackerel!

2. Heresey can be an even graver crime than murder because it can cause the eternal death of the soul. So, would it be wrong to put to death an arch-heretic like Martin Luther or Arius, if we are living in a Christian country? I am not certain that such would be wrong. It might be necessary to protect the faithful from spiritual death. I am not saying that I am certain on this point, just thinking outloud.

And we wonder why Richard Dawkins has so many followers, holy mackerel!

Is killing the soul worse than killing the body?

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Is killing the body the proper response to holding or teaching a false belief, especially in light of the teaching of your catechism?

Quote from: www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2106.htm

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."

Is killing the body the proper response to holding or teaching a false belief, especially in light of the teaching of your catechism?

Quote from: www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2106.htm

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."

I was not spaeking about every heretic in the street. I was talking about arch-heretics who are spreading error. Of course no one can be forced to accept the Catholic faith, but should a person be allowed to tear others away from the truth?

BTW, Just so you all know, I don't think that the death penalty is necessary in modern western society at all.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 05:31:50 PM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Where does this document indicate that it is actually moral to burn heretics?

Also, and bringing this to the present day and an even better developed "just war theory"...Does the Catholic Church teach that a just war is a moral war?...Or does she teach that all killing is evil but some killing may be justified and the sin thereby mitigated?

A question to the local Catholics: How can an infallible statement be perceivably immoral?

Taking up an argument from Fr. Cleenewerck's book (excerpt found here), I'll start with some definitions.

Papal Infallibility:As defined by the papal bull Pastor Aeternus when the First Vatican Council was disbanded in 1870.

Quote

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

In this definition we have a set of criteria to determine what should be considered an infallible statement. It is also nonsensical to think that infallible statements only happened after the declaration of the dogma. Therefore, using this definition, these are our criteria:

-when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians

-he defines with his supreme apostolic authority

-a doctrine concerning faith or morals

-to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Relating this formula to the Papal Encyclical Exsurge Domine from 1520, we can determine it's infallibility.

Exsurge Domine

Quote

CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER

Exsurge Domine

Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520

Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it.

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

Rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. He is like the heretics "whose last defense," as Jerome says, "is to start spewing out a serpent's venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished." For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves. Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, "It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man's, or what is worse, the devil's."

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world's glory, and contrary to the Apostle's teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed.

These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church's advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church's independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance. Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation no less learned than true and holy of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord's field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history.

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc." Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.

22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

26. The word of Christ to Peter: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth," etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

31. In every good work the just man sins.

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.

36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.

37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.

39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.

40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.

41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord's field as harmful thornbushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it. For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): "I will be with you to the consummation of the world"; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.

As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.

But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father's love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.

Breaking this down into the required criteria (have also bolded for you):

-when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians

Quote

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor...

Quote

We forbid each and every one of the faithful...

-he defines with his supreme apostolic authority

Quote

When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors.

Quote

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above.

Quote

(again) In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor...

-a doctrine concerning faith or morals

Quote

...we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith

Quote

We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.

-to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Quote

By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Quote

We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them.

First declaration to be determined or refuted: This document fits the definition of 'Ex Cathedra'.

On these characteristics, we see a moral problem with the determined faith:

#33 That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

Second declaration: Either the infallible statement is a mistake, the formula for infallibility is incorrect, or there is no papal infallibility... or it is actually moral to burn heretics.

Is killing the body the proper response to holding or teaching a false belief, especially in light of the teaching of your catechism?

Quote from: www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2106.htm

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."

I was not spaeking about every heretic in the street. I was talking about arch-heretics who are spreading error. Of course no one can be forced to accept the Catholic faith, but should a person be allowed to tear others away from the truth?

Yikes! Whatever happened to free-will? Was Arius solely responsible for people believing in his ideas, or did they use their free-wills to believe?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

So, would it be wrong to put to death an arch-heretic like Martin Luther or Arius, if we are living in a Christian country? I am not certain that such would be wrong. It might be necessary to protect the faithful from spiritual death. I am not saying that I am certain on this point, just thinking outloud.

I doubt it would be necessary to go so far as to kill them to forcibly terminate their influence, that is if such is even a proper Christian approach in the first place.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 05:54:32 PM by deusveritasest »

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Where does this document indicate that it is actually moral to burn heretics?

Also, and bringing this to the present day and an even better developed "just war theory"...Does the Catholic Church teach that a just war is a moral war?...Or does she teach that all killing is evil but some killing may be justified and the sin thereby mitigated?

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them.

Is killing the body the proper response to holding or teaching a false belief, especially in light of the teaching of your catechism?

Quote from: www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2106.htm

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."

I was not spaeking about every heretic in the street. I was talking about arch-heretics who are spreading error. Of course no one can be forced to accept the Catholic faith, but should a person be allowed to tear others away from the truth?

Yikes! Whatever happened to free-will? Was Arius solely responsible for people believing in his ideas, or did they use their free-wills to believe?

I remember reading something about millstones somewhere...

« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 06:23:13 PM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

So, would it be wrong to put to death an arch-heretic like Martin Luther or Arius, if we are living in a Christian country? I am not certain that such would be wrong. It might be necessary to protect the faithful from spiritual death. I am not saying that I am certain on this point, just thinking outloud.

I doubt it would be necessary to go so far as to kill them to forcibly terminate their influence, that is if such is even a proper Christian approach in the first place.

I agree that in modern society that would be true, as we now how effective ways separating these arch-heretics from the people.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

I remember this as well but I don't remember Christ commanding us to do the tying...

Wouldn't killing the heretics be making them a martyr to their cause, emboldening what followers they already have?

Again, I am not arguing that putting to death arch-hertics is something that must be done. I am not saying that it should be practiced in modern society where we have other ways of protecting people from grave criminals. I am not saying that it is the best or only way to deal with the situation. What I am arguing is that if the death penalty for mureders is not intrinsically unjust, then the death penalty for those who kill the soul, would not be intrinsically unjust either.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Where does this document indicate that it is actually moral to burn heretics?

Also, and bringing this to the present day and an even better developed "just war theory"...Does the Catholic Church teach that a just war is a moral war?...Or does she teach that all killing is evil but some killing may be justified and the sin thereby mitigated?

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them.

I truncated the quote to specify the area I'm looking at.

There's nothing in that document that states that killing is moral. It says that killing is mitigated, and indicates under what circumstances...

So, would it be wrong to put to death an arch-heretic like Martin Luther or Arius, if we are living in a Christian country? I am not certain that such would be wrong. It might be necessary to protect the faithful from spiritual death. I am not saying that I am certain on this point, just thinking outloud.

I doubt it would be necessary to go so far as to kill them to forcibly terminate their influence, that is if such is even a proper Christian approach in the first place.

I agree that in modern society that would be true, as we now how effective ways separating these arch-heretics from the people.

And you don't think that they did in the time of Martin Luther or even Arius?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

What I am arguing is that if the death penalty for mureders is not intrinsically unjust, then the death penalty for those who kill the soul, would not be intrinsically unjust either.

So your argument assumes support for capital punishment for murderers on our part?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Where does this document indicate that it is actually moral to burn heretics?

Also, and bringing this to the present day and an even better developed "just war theory"...Does the Catholic Church teach that a just war is a moral war?...Or does she teach that all killing is evil but some killing may be justified and the sin thereby mitigated?

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them.

I truncated the quote to specify the area I'm looking at.

There's nothing in that document that states that killing is moral. It says that killing is mitigated, and indicates under what circumstances...

Where does this document indicate that it is actually moral to burn heretics?

Also, and bringing this to the present day and an even better developed "just war theory"...Does the Catholic Church teach that a just war is a moral war?...Or does she teach that all killing is evil but some killing may be justified and the sin thereby mitigated?

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them.

I truncated the quote to specify the area I'm looking at.

There's nothing in that document that states that killing is moral. It says that killing is mitigated, and indicates under what circumstances...

Second declaration: Either the infallible statement is a mistake, the formula for infallibility is incorrect, or there is no papal infallibility... or it is actually moral to burn heretics.

If this is the case, then why wouldn't such a practice be actively supported by the church (and the pope) today?

Because it is no longer seen as a matter of life and death in most places.

But the more Christians are killed in the world the more it will once again be perceived as such.

Would you be happy with a Church that said you could not defend yourself and your family against someone who wanted to kill you because of your faith or who incited others to riot against you personally in your work and in your home and in your parish church?

Second declaration: Either the infallible statement is a mistake, the formula for infallibility is incorrect, or there is no papal infallibility... or it is actually moral to burn heretics.

If this is the case, then why wouldn't such a practice be actively supported by the church (and the pope) today?

Because it is no longer seen as a matter of life and death in most places.

But the more Christians are killed in the world the more it will once again be perceived as such.

Would you be happy with a Church that said you could not defend yourself and your family against someone who wanted to kill you because of your faith or who incited others to riot against you personally in your work and in your home and in your parish church?

That has nothing to do with being a heretic. I understand there was a lot of fighting between Catholics and Protestants at one time, but then it would make sense to protect your family, not because someone is a heretic, but because they are engaging in what would be considered terrorsim by todays standards.

Second declaration: Either the infallible statement is a mistake, the formula for infallibility is incorrect, or there is no papal infallibility... or it is actually moral to burn heretics.

If this is the case, then why wouldn't such a practice be actively supported by the church (and the pope) today?

Because it is no longer seen as a matter of life and death in most places.

But the more Christians are killed in the world the more it will once again be perceived as such.

Would you be happy with a Church that said you could not defend yourself and your family against someone who wanted to kill you because of your faith or who incited others to riot against you personally in your work and in your home and in your parish church?

That has nothing to do with being a heretic. I understand there was a lot of fighting between Catholics and Protestants at one time, but then it would make sense to protect your family, not because someone is a heretic, but because they are engaging in what would be considered terrorsim by todays standards.

Second declaration: Either the infallible statement is a mistake, the formula for infallibility is incorrect, or there is no papal infallibility... or it is actually moral to burn heretics.

If this is the case, then why wouldn't such a practice be actively supported by the church (and the pope) today?

Because it is no longer seen as a matter of life and death in most places.

But the more Christians are killed in the world the more it will once again be perceived as such.

Would you be happy with a Church that said you could not defend yourself and your family against someone who wanted to kill you because of your faith or who incited others to riot against you personally in your work and in your home and in your parish church?

That has nothing to do with being a heretic. I understand there was a lot of fighting between Catholics and Protestants at one time, but then it would make sense to protect your family, not because someone is a heretic, but because they are engaging in what would be considered terrorsim by todays standards.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Second declaration: Either the infallible statement is a mistake, the formula for infallibility is incorrect, or there is no papal infallibility... or it is actually moral to burn heretics.

If this is the case, then why wouldn't such a practice be actively supported by the church (and the pope) today?

Because it is no longer seen as a matter of life and death in most places.

But the more Christians are killed in the world the more it will once again be perceived as such.

Would you be happy with a Church that said you could not defend yourself and your family against someone who wanted to kill you because of your faith or who incited others to riot against you personally in your work and in your home and in your parish church?

That has nothing to do with being a heretic. I understand there was a lot of fighting between Catholics and Protestants at one time, but then it would make sense to protect your family, not because someone is a heretic, but because they are engaging in what would be considered terrorsim by todays standards.

Second declaration: Either the infallible statement is a mistake, the formula for infallibility is incorrect, or there is no papal infallibility... or it is actually moral to burn heretics.

If this is the case, then why wouldn't such a practice be actively supported by the church (and the pope) today?

Because it is no longer seen as a matter of life and death in most places.

But the more Christians are killed in the world the more it will once again be perceived as such.

Would you be happy with a Church that said you could not defend yourself and your family against someone who wanted to kill you because of your faith or who incited others to riot against you personally in your work and in your home and in your parish church?

That has nothing to do with being a heretic. I understand there was a lot of fighting between Catholics and Protestants at one time, but then it would make sense to protect your family, not because someone is a heretic, but because they are engaging in what would be considered terrorsim by todays standards.

Second declaration: Either the infallible statement is a mistake, the formula for infallibility is incorrect, or there is no papal infallibility... or it is actually moral to burn heretics.

If this is the case, then why wouldn't such a practice be actively supported by the church (and the pope) today?

Because it is no longer seen as a matter of life and death in most places.

But the more Christians are killed in the world the more it will once again be perceived as such.

Would you be happy with a Church that said you could not defend yourself and your family against someone who wanted to kill you because of your faith or who incited others to riot against you personally in your work and in your home and in your parish church?

That has nothing to do with being a heretic. I understand there was a lot of fighting between Catholics and Protestants at one time, but then it would make sense to protect your family, not because someone is a heretic, but because they are engaging in what would be considered terrorsim by todays standards.

Ok, that's it. I am convinced. Izzy here is 12 years old because this is the sort of nonsense I heard when I taught middle school.

I was taught that kidmapping was wrong, before and after I was 12. I can't speak to the nonsense they taught you in middle school on "faith and morals," but I have noticed the results: apparently child abduction, state repression including torture and murder, war mongering, colonization....no fault is at fault as long as it is directed ex cathedra Sancti Petri.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Second declaration: Either the infallible statement is a mistake, the formula for infallibility is incorrect, or there is no papal infallibility... or it is actually moral to burn heretics.

If this is the case, then why wouldn't such a practice be actively supported by the church (and the pope) today?

Because it is no longer seen as a matter of life and death in most places.

But the more Christians are killed in the world the more it will once again be perceived as such.

Would you be happy with a Church that said you could not defend yourself and your family against someone who wanted to kill you because of your faith or who incited others to riot against you personally in your work and in your home and in your parish church?

That has nothing to do with being a heretic. I understand there was a lot of fighting between Catholics and Protestants at one time, but then it would make sense to protect your family, not because someone is a heretic, but because they are engaging in what would be considered terrorsim by todays standards.

Ok, that's it. I am convinced. Izzy here is 12 years old because this is the sort of nonsense I heard when I taught middle school.

I was taught that kidmapping was wrong, before and after I was 12. I can't speak to the nonsense they taught you in middle school on "faith and morals," but I have noticed the results: apparently child abduction, state repression including torture and murder, war mongering, colonization....no fault is at fault as long as it is directed ex cathedra Sancti Petri.

And down the rabbit hole we go.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Second declaration: Either the infallible statement is a mistake, the formula for infallibility is incorrect, or there is no papal infallibility... or it is actually moral to burn heretics.

If this is the case, then why wouldn't such a practice be actively supported by the church (and the pope) today?

Because it is no longer seen as a matter of life and death in most places.

But the more Christians are killed in the world the more it will once again be perceived as such.

Would you be happy with a Church that said you could not defend yourself and your family against someone who wanted to kill you because of your faith or who incited others to riot against you personally in your work and in your home and in your parish church?

That has nothing to do with being a heretic. I understand there was a lot of fighting between Catholics and Protestants at one time, but then it would make sense to protect your family, not because someone is a heretic, but because they are engaging in what would be considered terrorsim by todays standards.

Ok, that's it. I am convinced. Izzy here is 12 years old because this is the sort of nonsense I heard when I taught middle school.

I was taught that kidmapping was wrong, before and after I was 12. I can't speak to the nonsense they taught you in middle school on "faith and morals," but I have noticed the results: apparently child abduction, state repression including torture and murder, war mongering, colonization....no fault is at fault as long as it is directed ex cathedra Sancti Petri.

And down the rabbit hole we go.

Ignore him and go back and respond to Azurestone's question. It is an interesting one though it presumes that if one allows for killing then one is promoting immorality as one would promote morality. That is not quite so, and it would only be fair to talk about it. Just close your eyes to the rest.

Where does this document indicate that it is actually moral to burn heretics?

Also, and bringing this to the present day and an even better developed "just war theory"...Does the Catholic Church teach that a just war is a moral war?...Or does she teach that all killing is evil but some killing may be justified and the sin thereby mitigated?

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them.

I truncated the quote to specify the area I'm looking at.

There's nothing in that document that states that killing is moral. It says that killing is mitigated, and indicates under what circumstances...

M.

I don't understand.

Are we always morally culable for killing?

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

One does not need fancy theories to bless the troops...hoping for a good outcome...end to war...victory for our dear men and women...etc. I see no pacifism here. In red we see the inherent prayer for swift victory in defense of all we hold dear...Mark Twain's War Prayer...anyone?

Christ our True God, who loves mankind, look down with mercy and compassion upon every soldier who is facing a daily struggle with war, aggression and terrorism. Each one desires to live before You, and be ever protected by Your Right Hand. Preserve them, we humbly pray, and watch over them every given hour. Guide their steps, give wisdom and discernment to all who are in leadership, that Your will may prevail, and that they may return safely to their homes and loved ones.

We beg You to hear the cry coming from our hearts, dear Lord Jesus Christ. We know that we are surrounded by many dangers. We are frightened as destruction; pain and death seem so near. We hurt with those who are hurting, and grieve with those who grieve, whether on the battlefield or in their homes.

Draw us closer to You, we pray. Grant to us and to each soldier the desire to say as the Psalmist did, "I will say of the Lord, 'He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust.' He shall cover you with His feathers, and under His wings you shall take refuge." (Psalm 91)

In Your righteousness forgive us as we continue in the defense of our beloved country. Watch over those whom we love, our wives, our children, relatives, and friends, as well as all civil authorities. May Your guiding Spirit be with those who govern us. Bless our country America, our allies, and all those who love freedom, peace, and good will among all men.

May Your mercy be ever granted to us, for without fear but with love, humility, and obedience we to turn to You, that we may be strengthened, stand firm, and live.

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.

There is a difference between that and "killing Muslims is the will of the Holy Spirit".

Is there? Is there really a difference? Explain it to me please.

But before you do show me where the Catholic Church...my one holy catholic and apostolic Church says that killing Muslims is the will of the Holy Spirit...I need to see that very positive declaritive first.

And remember to say that executing heretics is not AGAINST the will of the Holy Spirit is not the equivalent of saying that executing heretics IS the will of the Holy Spirit. IF it were the equivalent then NO Orthodox person EVER would be allowed to go to war.

There is a difference between that and "killing Muslims is the will of the Holy Spirit".

Is there? Is there really a difference? Explain it to me please.

But before you do show me where the Catholic Church...my one holy catholic and apostolic Church says that killing Muslims is the will of the Holy Spirit...I need to see that very positive declaritive first.

And remember to say that executing heretics is not AGAINST the will of the Holy Spirit is not the equivalent of saying that executing heretics IS the will of the Holy Spirit. IF it were the equivalent then NO Orthodox person EVER would be allowed to go to war.

M.

I used "Muslims" only to fit the context of what you quoted. Also there is a difference between identifying and killing a person based on religious views and based on protecting your home. It's not OK to kill people just because they disagree with you. It is OK to protect your home, family, and innocent people, and even then anything done that is normally against the will of God (killing or hurting for example) should still be confessed.

And remember to say that executing heretics is not AGAINST the will of the Holy Spirit is not the equivalent of saying that executing heretics IS the will of the Holy Spirit.

That is insane. You just went down Papist's rabbit hole.

Let's try your statement in other contexts... "remember to say that executing (babies in abortion) is not AGAINST the will of the Holy Spirit is not the equivalent of saying that aborting babies IS the will of the Holy Spirit."

""remember to say that kidnapping little boys is not AGAINST the will of the Holy Spirit is not the equivalent of saying that kidnapping little boys IS the will of the Holy Spirit.

And remember to say that executing heretics is not AGAINST the will of the Holy Spirit is not the equivalent of saying that executing heretics IS the will of the Holy Spirit.

That is insane. You just went down Papist's rabbit hole.

Let's try your statement in other contexts... "remember to say that executing (babies in abortion) is not AGAINST the will of the Holy Spirit is not the equivalent of saying that aborting babies IS the will of the Holy Spirit."

""remember to say that kidnapping little boys is not AGAINST the will of the Holy Spirit is not the equivalent of saying that kidnapping little boys IS the will of the Holy Spirit.

That is not at all insane. Nor am I.

In neither one of your examples does the issue of self-defense or defense of hearth and home come into play...So you are indeed talking apples and oranges.

But I would not say you or your issue here is insane. Just out of place.

There is a difference between that and "killing Muslims is the will of the Holy Spirit".

Is there? Is there really a difference? Explain it to me please.

But before you do show me where the Catholic Church...my one holy catholic and apostolic Church says that killing Muslims is the will of the Holy Spirit...I need to see that very positive declaritive first.

And remember to say that executing heretics is not AGAINST the will of the Holy Spirit is not the equivalent of saying that executing heretics IS the will of the Holy Spirit. IF it were the equivalent then NO Orthodox person EVER would be allowed to go to war.

M.

I used "Muslims" only to fit the context of what you quoted. Also there is a difference between identifying and killing a person based on religious views and based on protecting your home. It's not OK to kill people just because they disagree with you. It is OK to protect your home, family, and innocent people, and even then anything done that is normally against the will of God (killing or hurting for example) should still be confessed.

Since when did the Catholic Church, as a part of their moral theology, kill people JUST because they were in disagreement?

There is a difference between that and "killing Muslims is the will of the Holy Spirit".

Is there? Is there really a difference? Explain it to me please.

But before you do show me where the Catholic Church...my one holy catholic and apostolic Church says that killing Muslims is the will of the Holy Spirit...I need to see that very positive declaritive first.

And remember to say that executing heretics is not AGAINST the will of the Holy Spirit is not the equivalent of saying that executing heretics IS the will of the Holy Spirit. IF it were the equivalent then NO Orthodox person EVER would be allowed to go to war.

M.

I used "Muslims" only to fit the context of what you quoted. Also there is a difference between identifying and killing a person based on religious views and based on protecting your home. It's not OK to kill people just because they disagree with you. It is OK to protect your home, family, and innocent people, and even then anything done that is normally against the will of God (killing or hurting for example) should still be confessed.

Since when did the Catholic Church, as a part of their moral theology, kill people JUST because they were in disagreement?

It says "heretics", nothing else. Being a "heretic" is the basis for burning someone at the stake, their beliefs and not their actions.

There is a difference between that and "killing Muslims is the will of the Holy Spirit".

Is there? Is there really a difference? Explain it to me please.

But before you do show me where the Catholic Church...my one holy catholic and apostolic Church says that killing Muslims is the will of the Holy Spirit...I need to see that very positive declaritive first.

And remember to say that executing heretics is not AGAINST the will of the Holy Spirit is not the equivalent of saying that executing heretics IS the will of the Holy Spirit. IF it were the equivalent then NO Orthodox person EVER would be allowed to go to war.

M.

I used "Muslims" only to fit the context of what you quoted. Also there is a difference between identifying and killing a person based on religious views and based on protecting your home. It's not OK to kill people just because they disagree with you. It is OK to protect your home, family, and innocent people, and even then anything done that is normally against the will of God (killing or hurting for example) should still be confessed.

Since when did the Catholic Church, as a part of their moral theology, kill people JUST because they were in disagreement?

It says "heretics", nothing else. Being a "heretic" is the basis for burning someone at the stake, their beliefs and not their actions.

I think that heretic had a meaning far more severe that it means to most of you today. Heretic and heterodox are used just about interchangeably from what I can see. In the period in question, to be a heretic meant acting violently against the Church and her faithful. It also meant waging war, among other things equally violent.

It was not a pretty time.

Of course I realize from Isa that Orthodoxy promotes martyrdom rather than defense but that is again another one of the deep chasms between us. I am going to need to read up on the millions of Orthodox martyrs who have resisted all wars during the long bloody centuries in Europe. There must be many books on the subject since it is so unusual for a people to be so willing to die for the principle of peace rather than fight to defend.

Of course I realize from Isa that Orthodoxy promotes martyrdom rather than defense but that is again another one of the deep chasms between us. I am going to need to read up on the millions of Orthodox martyrs who have resisted all wars during the long bloody centuries in Europe. There must be many books on the subject since it is so unusual for a people to be so willing to die for the principle of peace rather than fight to defend.

That's not really the direction that I was going. We have many saints who were soldiers (St George for example), every week we pray for our armed forces, and there are a couple of guidelines found in the NT regarding how someone serving in the military can do their duty and still be faithful.